1o. Ches Mar Farms 2nd Additional Final Approval 1
;4 CITY OF .
. .
tt CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM r/ L),4 H
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
' - /S-� `1
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner �'_ /a -
' DATE: October 17 , 1989
SUBJ: Ches Mar Farms 2nd Addition Final Approval
On August 28 , 1989 , the City Council approved the preliminary
plat ( #88-27 ) for Ches Mar Farms 2nd Addition . The preliminary
1 plat was approved with the following conditions :
1 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
' along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1 , Block 1 , of
Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition.
2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the city designating that Outlot A has only one building
eligibility and the development contract must recorded as
part of the recording of the final plat .
3 . Outlot A is considered unbuildable until it is combined with
adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and
street access .
4 . The applicant shall submit a revised plat changing Lot 2 ,
Block 1 to Outlot A.
The applicant has submitted the final plat for approval by the
City Council . The final plat meets Condition #4 by designating
' the lots as Lot 1 , Block 1 , and Outlot A. The applicant is
working with City Staff and the City Attorney to draft a develop-
ment contract which would meet the conditions of #2 and #3 . The
' applicant has provided a 35 foot utility and drainage easement on
the plat and is providing a separate roadway easement document to
meet condition #1 .
' RECOMMENDATION
The proposed final plat for Ches Mar Farms 2nd Addition is con-
sistent with the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends the
r
r .
I Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
Page 2
ICity Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the final plat for Ches Mar Farms 2nd
I Addition as shown on plans dated October 18, 1989 with the
following conditions:
Ii. A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1, of
Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition.
I 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the city designating that Outlot A has only one building
eligibility and the development contract must recorded as
Ipart of the recording of the final plat.
3 . Outlot A is considered unbuildable until it is combined with
I adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and
street access . "
ATTACHMENTS
I1. City Council minutes dated August 28, 1989 .
2 . Final plat dated October 18, 1989.
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II , City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
IIjust been a necessity from construction.
I Councilman Boyt: I think the problem, among others, pointed out here is that
the road doesn't have a name and I would like to see a motion that requests that
the process begin to name this road.
II Mayor Chmiel: Bill, before you go to a motion. Is that road plowed by us as
well in the winter? Okay.
I Councilman Boyt: So if that's appropriate I would move that staff begin the
process of going about selecting a name for what is now being called Bowling
Alley Road.
ICouncilman Workman: I'd second that.
Councilman Johnson: Would you also like to deny the sign request?
ICouncilman Boyt: Let's do one at a time.
I Mayor Ctniel: I thought that was your motion. You indicated that it was to
deny the sign request.
I Councilman Johnson: There was no second.
Mayor Qiniel: I didn't call for the second. Is there a second?
ICouncilwoman Dimler: I'll second it. Now we have two motions on the floor.
Mayor CYmiel: Bill, will you withdraw your motion?
IICouncilman Boyt: We'll amend Jay's motion to include that staff be directed to
proceed with the naming of the road.
ICouncilman Johnson: So accepted.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I'll second that one too.
I
Councilman Johnson moved, Cbuncilwanan Dimler seconded to deny the sign request
Ito locate a sign at the southeast corner of West 78th Street and Market Blvd.
for FMG, Fragrance Manufacturing Group and to direct staff to proceed with the
official naming of what is now referred to as Bowling Alley Road. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
I
C. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 22.8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.5 AND 20.33 ACRES,
CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, CHES MAR REALTY.
Councilman Workman: It came to my attention that perhaps the Gross's would be
I here to maybe make some comments.
Councilwoman Dimler: Ginger and Chuck are not here.
I
4
i ATrA c N M e nT 1
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Workman: I guess Jo Ann, can you explain to me item 3? Condition 3
a little bit and our need for that?
' Mayor Chmiel: The 35 foot roadway?
Councilman Boyt: That's really Gary's maybe.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, Gary do you want to address that 35 foot roadway easement?
' Councilman Johnson: That's changed to 30 now. It's item 3 on the front page.
On page 4 it's it 1 for a 30. Is that what you're talking about?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, item 3 on the first page.
Gary Warren: This goes back into ancient history from my perspective.
' Jo Ann Olsen: The whole reason that we're requesting the 35 foot is to provide
us with a full 60 foot right-of-way for future improvements when Cues Mar Farm
ever further subdivided.
' Councilman Workman: Could you show me where that is?
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, you already have 25 foot right-of-way on the other
side of the property line and now we're asking...
Jo Ann Olsen: For an easement along here.
Councilman Johnson: So we'll have a 55 foot roadway easement instead of 60.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary Kirt, he has access right?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.. .a private drive.
' Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that the City cannot create a land
locked piece of property.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
11 Jo Ann Olsen: Well we're making...
' Councilman Boyt: This is Block 1, whatever right? And this is what we're going
to be calling the outlot? Roger, I'd like to have your clarification because I
saw a lot of confusion about this in the Planning Minutes but it's my
understanding that by doing this, we would in essence be creating a land locked
piece of property. I can't propose that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe I can shed sane light on it. I guess the proposal
' is that Gary Kirt buy that 20 acres. That's why we're going after this
subdivision? Because he has access already and it would just be a continuation.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's not guaranteed that he will buy that property. The reason
the whole subdivision is being proposed is so the Gross' can buy their property.
The 2 1/2 acre piece.
1
5
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: They have an option on the 1.9 they're on right now.
' Councilman Boyt: They can't buy it without the subdivision.
Councilwoman Dimler: They cannot exercise their option unless they have, is it
due to taxes? Is that it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Because it's all one piece. It's actually all under single
ownership.
Councilwoman Dimler: They have to have a tax number or something. Is that
correct?
' Councilman Boyt: They'd have to buy the whole piece.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to expand a little bit on the
question and maybe Gary you could answer this. I don't understand why the City
needs that roadway easement. Is the City going to be putting in the streets for
the developer? Perhaps the people that develop it would like that road to
' remain private. It's my understanding usually the developer puts in the roads
and then the City takes them over. Why are we doing this different?
Gary Warren: It's not uncommon to what we require in any plat for future
expansion if the plat at this point in time does not include roadways but we
recognize the future development where access for future parcels is important
such as the Van Eeckhout item here that's on tonight's agenda where we will
reserve a future right-of-way. Whether it's built on or not at this time, this
is the time to get the right-of-way is because the platting statutes are in the
City's favor as far as requiring the dedication without any reimbursement so
this is the time that the platting...
Councilwoman Dimler: But why would the City have to do it? Why can't the
developer get those easements?
' Gary Warren: A developer could get the easements. It would be at sane expense.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I'm asking. Why is the City doing this?
Gary Warren: The City would be doing it I guess to protect our options in the
future without having to use the condemnation process to secure the easements.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that would benefit the developer?
Gary Warren: It benefits I guess the developer. If the City were to force him
to acquire the easements, yes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Which is the normal procedure isn't it?
Gary Warren: Yes it is.
Councilwoman Dimler: So again why is the City doing this? I don't understand.
Gary Warren: I sorry, which is the normal procedure?
6
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: That the developer would get the easements, put in the
roads and then sell them to the City or whatever for us to maintain them. In
' other words, the future development then would no longer have the option of
having that be a private road if they so chose.
Gary Warren: It'd still be a private road with the right-of-way. If we chose
' not to accept it, Dogwood Lane for example is on a city right-of-way but the
City has not accepted that road for maintenance because it's deficient in road
section and therefore we do not maintain it so you can have a private road still
' even though there's dedicated right-of-way to the City. We haven't necessarily
precluded that option at all.
Councilman Johnson: This is fairly standard. I think I've seen it over the
last 2 1/2 years several times that one developer will be required to maintain
access to the next parcel because it makes sense for public safety purposes and
basic access and future development. If we don't do things like this, we end up
' with a road running down the middle of sane property ending in a large
cul-de-sac 2,000, 5,000 feet, whatever and then right next door you have another
long cul-de-sac. It's all part of the planning process.
Councilwanan Dimler: Yes, I understand that Jay but that would cane in with,
then we would be able to approve or disapprove of when they cane in with their
development but I don't see why at this point we have to get that right-of-way.
Councilman Johnson: We've got 25 foot on one side and 25 foot does us no good.
We have an opportunity for no dollars basically to get another 30 foot to have a
55 foot which is then a useable right-of-way if it's required in the future. If
we don't get it now, it gets much more difficult to get it in the future. It's
sliding a card up your sleeve or whatever you do while you're playing the game
in order to have a chance in the future.
Councilwoman Dimler: So are we locking in by acquiring this now, are we then
saying that we will develop the roads in this development?
' Councilman Johnson: No.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And if we opt not to do that, do we then sell the easement
to the developer?
' Gary Warren: We can vacate it at no revenue to the City.
Councilman Johnson: We've done that several times with easements that we
thought we needed. The development developed differently than we thought. We
came back, vacated the easement and the two property owners next to the easement
got it back. In fact this is only an easement. The property owners still own
the property. This just says we have the right to bring a street in there if
that is what the plans show up eventually. Kind of a smart move in my opinion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Tricky.
' Councilman Johnson: I think it's common.
Councilwanan Dimler: I don't think it's that cannon but anyway, thank you for
' answering my question.
7
i
11 . City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. I was glad to here that discussion about the 30, 35 feet
or whatever it is. You have an interesting point and I can see for the City's
' standpoint I know that this is sort of an automatic. When we get the chance to
do this we do it. From the standpoint of it really doesn't go into any city
owned property, it's an interesting question. At this point I don't know what
' the right answer is and maybe we hold off on this thing until we get a better
answer. My inclination would be to vote to take the easement because it's just
smart for the city I bet but this other issue comes up that Ursula raises is a
' good one. I still think that the City should not be approving a subdivision in
which there is no access to the second piece of property. We're just asking for
trouble down the road somewhere.
Mayor Chmiel: You're back to the landlocked?
Councilman Boyt: I'm back to the landlocked thing. Roger tells me that there's
nothing in our ordinance that prevents us fram granting a landlocked division
here but I think common sense sort of prevents it. So I'm real wary of this.
If we accept the easement, I think we should accept a 35 easement because again
it's an easement. It's not an ownership issue and we ought to go at it with the
' road width that the City requires which is 60 feet and we're going to go I think
pretty quickly to a 60 foot urban requirement as well so we can put in utilities
and put in the road and other things without having to buy property. So I'd
' like, if we vote on this tonight, I'd sure like to see us go back to 35 feet.
Mayor C oriel: Okay. I think we're looking for that total 60 feet for
right-of-way with the 35 feet. How much closer does that come directly to the
house? One of my concerns. 5 feet can be more than inconvenience for that
individual property owner too and I think that was one of the reasons that they
decided to go to 30.
Councilman Boyt: But which side are we taking that out of? I thought we were
taking that on, is it the north side of the property? It's on the south side of
' the property? It's away from that house.
Mayor C oriel: Okay. Mr. Cross, you can address that.
Chuck Cross: I'm sorry. I thought we were coming up a little bit later and
that's the reason why I'm late here. Could I say something about this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. State your name and address please.
Chuck Cross: My name is Chuck Gross. 2703 Cues Mar Farm Drive. This is our
home that you're talking about and we've lived there for I believe 18 years now.
We're asking that the Council accept the plat as you've received it and we are
asking that you strike the item 3 on there. I base that primarily on the fact
that this is an area that the people that live on this farm wish for it to
remain private and wish the road to remain a private road. I guess if in the
future there was going to be a development, which I don't believe there's
anybody that really wants that now, that at least lives on the farm, we would
like to have the option of being able to deal with that situation at that time
in relation to offering an easement for that to happen. When you speak of a 35
1 8
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
foot easement or even a 30 foot easement, you're taking a lot of mature trees on
our side. It does get close to our home and the taking of that would be very
much an incumberance and I realize that granting an easement doesn't change
anything today but what it does do is it opens up for a developer. It makes it
much more easier for that developer to be able to come in and creat a
development and we simply do not want that. All we're looking for is to be able
to get our Tax ID number on the 2 1/2 acres so that we can continue to plan for
that area. We planted over 200 trees on the property and many of those are on
this easement area that we're talking about here. Actually I personally feel
that if there was to be a development, perhaps the road coming in there would
not be the best answer to it because it's not designed for that. With the house
on the north side as well as ours and then going further into the farm, the
bridge and the cut away and such, would require a tremendous amount of fill and
' it probably would not be the best answer. Addressing the property, the 20 acres
that would be divided off of this, as far as landlocking it, what I am told is
that there is a purchase agreement or an option with Mr. Kirt that owns sane of
' the rest of the property on the farm and that he's looking to buy that as soon
as we're granted ours. As soon as it's separated and then it would be simply
joined to his property and there would be no access problems in relation to
that. If there are any questions I'd like a chance to maybe answer them.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. What I think of as the
farm site back in
there, the largest home of all those hones.
Chuck Gross: That's a sixplex in there.
Councilman Boyt: Who owns that?
Chuck Gross: Gary Kirt. There's a Terry Jones that lives in there now and I
believe he is operating with same type of a, perhaps an option with Mr. Kirt.
Councilman Boyt: It seems to me over the past when we've discussed it there's
been a series of people who have lived in that sixplex. Are you on the north,
currently, are you on the north side of this property we're looking at or are
you in Block 1, Lot 1?
' Chuck Gross: Block 1, Lot 1 on the south side of the road. That's the 2 1/2
acre area that we're looking to divide.
Councilman Boyt: Okay so when we look at this. When we talk about 35 feet,
there's currently right along your proposed lot line is a private drive that
accesses the Kirt property?
Chuck Gross: Yes. The drive is a private drive caning in and our lot line runs
down pretty much the middle of that private drive yes.
' Councilman Boyt: Right now, given the size requirements for an individual
residence in the rural residential zoning, no one else can come back in there
and build.
Chuck Gross: I don't believe it's suitable for any additional building.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's 1 in 10.
9
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Chuck Gross: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: 1 house in 10 acres.
Chuck Gross: Right and I believe what was suggested in relation to the
additional 20 acres is that when that is divided off, that would be one building
site.
Councilman Boyt: Right because you're using one on your 2 1/2?
' Chuck Gross: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: But the 20 acres can only support 2 or the 22 acres can only
support 2 so the other 20 acres gets 1 house site.
Chuck Gross: That's correct.
' Councilman Boyt: I guess my point is that at least until that's rezoned, the
potential for any future development is pretty limited.
Chuck Gross: Yes it is.
' Councilman Boyt: So I see the issue in front of the Council is one of do we
protect a public right-of-way here or do we choose to not protect that public
right-of-way and then force the developer to came in and buy that property later
on? Interesting issue.
Chuck Cross: Were there any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: But if the City already owns 25 feet there, an easement, is
that correct? The City already has easement purchased there?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Or owned, not purchased. We already have control of an
easement through that area.
tCouncilwoman Dimler: Is that correct? How did we get that?
' Jo Ann Olsen: Through the PUD process.
Councilman Johnson: I've got a question for Jo Ann actually. Wfe've now got a
20 same acre lot adjacent to Mr. Kirt's lot. How big is Mr. Kirt's area?
Jo Ann Olsen: Off hand I can't remember.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay, and that 20 acre would support one house right now as
the current subdivision.
Jo Ann Olsen: One building eligibility.
Councilman Johnson: If it is in the future under single ownership and gets
combined with the property next to it, would it then be allowed 2 houses?
1 10
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: No. That's why we had the condition for the development contract
that it would only have 1 building eligibility.
Councilman Johnson: Okay so it can't be further subdivided in the future when
it gets combined with another 20 acres which would then support 4 houses and
' then cut up into 4 pieces.
Jo Ann Olsen: It could be cut into 3 pieces.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay. So that ad infinitim means that that 20 some acres
is only going to be one piece?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well if it's combined with another parcel that has 2 other
building eligibilities, if they want to have the buildings on this 20 acres, yes
they can switch them but this one is only good for 1 building eligibility
wherever you put them.
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, thank you.
Gregory Korstad: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Gregory Korstad.
I'm with the Larkin Hoffman law firm, 7900 Xerxes in Bloomington. We represent
' Ches Mar Realty, the owner of this property and I'm here basically this evening
to request of the City Council that the plat be approved per the recommendations
of staff and to advise the City Council that on behalf of the owner of the
property, we consent to and support all of the conditions that have been stated
in the staff recommendation to the City Council. Essentially what you have
before you is a situation where but for the existence of the right-of-way
' dedication, the City would be creating a 20 plus acre area of the City that
could be virtually landlocked without any access. We're asking that you provide
the access. We're asking and we want the City to confirm access through the use
of the easement. The property belongs to Ches Mar Realty and Ches Mar Realty
' intends that that easement go there and Ches Mar Realty does not intend that the
property be subdivided to create a 20 acre area of land that cannot be accessed.
We certainly wouldn't want to be doing that because that would be in essence
' devaluing most of the property in order to provide an additional division of the
land there. There's really 3 ways that this can be done and staff I think has
properly compromised the various positions and those opposing positions are one,
to allow subdivision of the property as we originally requested it. That is to
allow 2 parcels. One, 1.9 acres and the other 20.8 acres both of which would be
lots in the subdivision. Neither of which would be outlots. Both of which
would be buildable lots. Both of which would be entitled to receive access from
the City or the position of the Gross' that we landlock 20 acres in order that
they, owning now 2 1/2 acres which has been added from their 1.9 acres, and be
able to control and prevent the development of the other property. We think it
would be grossly unfair to have 2 1/2 acres restrict 20 acres. Likewise, it
would not be probably good planning to have 2 driveway entrances off CR 41 so
the appropriate compromise for the situation is to put the easement where staff
has indicated it ought to go and thereby accomplish the greatest good for the
long term planning interest of the City.
Mayor Chmiel: For your information that county road is Highway 41. State
Highway.
1 11
1 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Gregory Korstad: Sorry, state highway 41. I have to apologize for not having
all of the is crossed. I got into this fairly late this afternoon. Are there
other questions?
' Councilman Johnson: I have a question. You represent the folks that are
selling the land to the Gross's?
' Gregory Korstad: We represent the people that own the property.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, what about the lot that the Gross' house is currently
' on? The 1.9 acres.
Gregory Korstad: Ches Mar Realty has agreed to sell 1.9 acres to the Gross' .
Chuck Gross: No, 2.5.
Gregory Korstad: And Ches Mar Realty has increased the size of that, agreed to
' increase the size of that to 2.5 if we get this subdivision approved. In order
to get it approved. The staff came back some time ago and indicated that we
needed to add property to that lot in order to make it meet the minimum
' requirements under the City ordinance and we have done that without additional
compensation.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, if this gets passed without the roadway easement,
t it's not final until the owners sign off on it. It does not become a
subdivision just because we passed it. Am I correct also there?
Mayor C oriel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So in that case you could just not sell it and not complete
the subdivision if we pulled that. That would be one of your options?
Gregory Korstad: Legally that would be one of the options. It's not at all
preferred because what it does is it puts us back in the same place we were last
fall and then we're still at a stalmate. We've found that the only way that the
stalmate can be broken is for everybody to give a little. Ches Max Farms Realty
has given .6 of an acre and in exchange request that it be allowed to create the
easement that staff has indicated should exist for the best interest of long
term planning of the City.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question. If Mr. Kirt were to buy the 20 acres
that we're talking about, then that would not be landlocked. There would be
access. Is that correct?
Gregory Korstad: There would not be sufficient access because there wouldn't be
a wide enough easement to meet city standards to put in a road. There's a house
to the north of the existing easement and the existing easement tacks onto the
parcel that we're talking about here. It would not be possible to move the
' existing easement farther to the north. There's not roam from what I understand
of the property and I haven't looked at it so I can't say.
Councilwoman Dimler: But basically it would not be landlocked? There would be
access, that's what I wanted.
12
' City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
I
Gregory Korstad: It would not be able to be accessed by the city street and
landlocked from my standpoint is not being able to be accessed from a city
street in order to use the property. I'm sure that the City doesn't want this a
long winding driveway back up towards the lake along this long narrow lot.
Certainly the City's interest is in having a public street to be able to access
' that. We don't want to create problems that are going to came back to you in
the future and we don't want to be back to you asking you to approve a 20 foot
wide private driveway that runs way back to the lake.
Councilman Boyt: You've added another interesting perspective here in that you
own the property and you're asking to grant this easement. There is, as far as
' a private drive, you can access this property with a private drive and build on
that 20 acre piece of property because a private drive can service 3 homes so
you can do that. However, I'm inclined to support staff recommendation with the
easement increased to 35 feet. It's the property owner that's asking us to do
' it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Roger, would you please address the issue of, is it
' uncommon for the developer to buy the easement and then develop the road and
then later turn it over to the City or keep it a private road? Is that
sanething that's common or is that uncommon?
' Roger Knutson: I don't know if I can quantify it. The most cannon thing is for
the developer to dedicate easements in the plat for the City.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we are doing it differently by proposing for the City
to get the easement and then the developer, we turn than over to the developer
so to speak?
' Roger Knutson: No, what we're doing now is the most cannon. TO have it
dedicated on the plat, the easement. By canon, that's the most common thing to
do is to require the developer to dedicate all necessary easements right on the
plat.
Councilman Johnson: The developer currently owns that and the developer is
asking to do it. He's saying, City we're going to give you it. Then he's going
to sell the lot.
Roger Knutson: Private drives are the exception for access to property.
Mayor Chmiel: One of the discussions at the Planning Commission Mir. Gross,
if I remember correctly, the reason I think staff came up with a 30 foot roadway
easement was that because of the trees. You wouldn't necessarily have to cut so
many trees on that one specific site. Was I correct?
' Chuck Gross: That's correct.
Mayor Clmiel: And that's why it was trimmed back from 35 to 30.
Chuck Gross: Can I mention one other thing? The developer or the owner, Ches
Mar Realty, when they develop and produce an option on this property, they did
not have, there was no easement in there. What they were doing was, they sold
this property without easements as such and it's not really theirs to give away
11 13
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
at this point because we developed it. We entered into a contract with no
easement there. They're giving away something they don't have a right to give
' away because we have a contract and that plat that you have there signifies
where the property lines are supposed to be with the exception that we added the
.6 acres to put on the south side. If we were going to have a trade-off, we
would prefer just to have the 1.9 and no easement rather than 2 1/2 with any
kind of easement.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? A couple of quick points. Our standard right-of-way
' in the rural areas as noted here is 60 feet. The road that we build in that
standard section if it were a public road, is 24 feet wide with shoulders. So
just because the easement would be 60 feet wouldn't mean necessarily that we
' would have to indiscriminately be taking down trees to a 60 foot width. In fact
that rural section provides us with sane flexibility in that regard. The other
issue that I see in staff's approach to the need for the easement at this time
' was restricted access on TH 41. With the minor arterial status that the road
has and will continue to justify in the future. It would be very difficult for
me to imagine that this connection, which is an existing connection that MnDot
must recognize, would not be the full access for this property and that to get
' another access within a quarter mile would be a heck of a challenge.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion?
' Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask our City Attorney a question there. If you
could comment on Mr. Gross' because he has an option on this property and at the
time of the option there was no easement discussed. Does that mean, what does
that do? He doesn't own the property. He only has an option.
Roger Knutson: That's a private legal dispute between the two of them. If this
is what you want, this is what you should request. And you decide what
conditions you want to approve it on and then work out getting the signatures.
We can't sit up here and resolve their private legal problems.
' Mayor C oriel: Any other further discussion? If hearing none, do I have a
motion?
' Ginger Gross: Hi there. I'm Ginger Gross. He said some things that perhaps
should be brought out. There are two private land owners on the property. The
rest of the people who are on the property are not owners of the property.
Those of us who are there intend that our properties remain private estates. We
do not intend to subdivide at any point. Geri Eikaas in the back is on several
acres. She does not intend to subdivide at any point. When water and sewer
' came in, she does not intend to subdivide. We in the front do not intend to
subdivide. We have a private drive going off the main road caning in. Our
landscaping is such that we intend for ourselves to remain as we are in the
midst of our property. There is no benefit to either Geri or ourselves for a
' public road to come in. Keep in mind that there are no other owners on the
property. It is a contractor who would like to develop the property who would
like the City to cause an easement on our property and the City to put a road in
I through the property. That grant you would happen very quickly. We would have
a very wide road and a very dense property. I'm sorry, dense development there.
I question, it may be legal to do the things that you're saying. I ask if it is
either morally or ethically appropriate to take our property to benefit a
developer who has threatened us. Who has caused us many problems. Who has
14
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
tried to get us off of our properties any way he could. I ask you if it is
proper to take our property to facilitate that developer. If it is also proper
' that the City pay for a road that will allow him to develop. I ask you if
that's appropriate. The situation is more complex. There are a series of
people involved here. Those people wishing to develop the property have also
bought the gate house. That gate fuse is part of the property that has the
' easement on it. They are the people who would make the money and that's the
bottom line with what is going on with that property because there's been a
disregard for the property until now. They are the people who would make the
money. I suggest that if there is to be development to cane through there, that
you allow your developer to put the road in using that newly acquired piece of
property to move his house back on his property. Not to take our property to
benefit him because we do intend to stay as we are when sewer and water canes
through. When anything comes through. We do not intend to cut up into small
parcels nor do the people in the back of the farm. The 20 acres in the back is
the leftover piece of property after over 300 acres have been worked with over a
1 period of 20 years. Most of the acreage went to the park. That particular 20
acres that you're talking about, at one time was part of the farm. The only
reason this issue is here is because of the Larkin-Hoffman law firm did not
cause the proper moves to be taken to run it through City Hall at that time and
get it subdivided. There'd be no problem now but the legal work was not done at
that point. It was just filed with us as part of the 20 acres. That's really
' not our problem. The 20 acres is a remaining island of property after
subdivision of a large parcel of property. I don't feel that I have to give
away my easement to give access to that property. I don't feel that I should
have to do that. My contract with Larkin-Hoffinan is such that states that I
have meets and bounds that will prevail and our property begins in the middle of
that road. Again I say that the developers, the people involved with that
property have now acquired the property right across the road from me. If they
' want to put in a development, I suggest that they do it on their property and
not on ours. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion?
ICouncilman Boyt: I would move that we accept staff recommendations with item 1
being changed to 35 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: 35 would move that back, but you said again that it wouldn't
affect the trees?
Gary Warren: The standard road section built would be 24 feet of pavement and I
don't have an intimate knowledge of each tree out there but I would say there's
flexibility to work within that.
Ginger Gross: That would take out about 70 trees.
Mayor Chmiel: 70?
Ginger Gross: Yes.
' Councilman Johnson: It doesn't take out the trees. It places than within an
easement. That doesn't necessarily mean they die.
1
15
11, City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Ginger Gross: They are within, most of them are within 4 feet of the existing
road bed.
Councilman Johnson: So even a 30 foot easement is going to take out most of
them?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Unfortunately it will.
Councilman Johnson: It's not going to take out most of them. It's going to
include most of them.
Councilman Wbrk man: Roger, how justified in a situation like this where it's
I basically a private road. One property owner owning half of it, somewhat of a
short length. An important length. As Ginger says, the benefit is going to go
to the developer with the larger parcel whenever sewer gets out there. Is what
I she saying is slide the road over? Give her her easement and slide the road
over and they take their portion?
Roger Knutson: Can you slide the road over?
ICouncilman Workman: Basically she's talking about what I would think, since
this line is in the center of the road, which is their north boundary, I think
what she's saying is take no more of our property. Take, in the easement, move
it all over here so that if they...
I Roger Knutson: Who owns that propety? Is it available to you?
Councilman Boyt: We're not subdividing that property. We can't take any
easements from them unless you want to condemn it.
ICouncilman Johnson: That's a different owner too.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a separate owner.
Gregory Korstad: On that issue, there's not enough roam, from what I'm
informed, there's not enough roan to do that without taking the house to the
north. You'd have to actually remove that house.
Councilman Workman: Isn't that the gate house?
Chuck Gross: Yes it is.
Councilman Workman: Who owns the gate house?
Chuck Gross: That's exactly the point. That's the reason they want that 35
foot is so they don't have to deal with that house situation.
Councilman Workman: Who owns it?
Gregory Korstad: I don't know. What we're talking about here is balancing
interests. We've got 20 acres versus an easement, which is not a fee ownership
here. I think it's pretty important to recognize that the City's got a fairly
substantial interest here too in what happens with that 20 acres.
16
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Are you the people that just purchased the gate house as it's
being called?
Gregory Korstad: I represent Ches Mar Realty which is a trustee of the Naegele
Trust. More details than that I do not know. My understanding is that there is
an adjacent property owner that is considering some development and that's all I
can really tell you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did your client just purchase that gate house then?
' Gregory Korstad: No. I do not, my client, to the best of my knowledge, does
not own that gate house but owns the property and only the property that's
contained in the plat. There is, as I understand it, a developer to the
northwest that has sane property interests out there but at this point it's not
my knowledge whether they own that gate house or not.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Can we table this until we find out?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think that it makes a difference does it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh yes because if they own it, then they can certainly
move the road.
' Councilman Boyt: But the point is, if they did own it, they'd own both sides of
the road and they're coming to us and saying, we want the easement on the side
that's being proposed tonight. I'd like to clear up a couple things. The City
isn't building the road. This road, the property is currently zoned in such a
fashion that it cannot be developed. They can only put 1 more house in there.
Moving the road to the north would be basically forcing someone to take out that
house. But quite clearly, the City is not building the road. If when we take
the easement we're simple saying that at sane point in the future someone has
the right to put a road in there. If development causes that road to go in, the
City won't build the road at that point.
Councilman Johnson: Who owns this entire 23 acres or whatever the total is
here? 28.83.
' Jo Ann Olsen: (Vies Mar Realty.
' Gregory Korstad: Ches Mar Farms Realty.
Brad Johnson: I can answer the rest. I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Gary Kirt
who is the owner of Ches Mar Farm. He has sold that under option which probably
' will not be taken to a developer. Since that did not happen, he's going to move
out there personally and live there. There's an old gray house that's going to
be remodeled and he's going to live there. The gate house is for sale.
Mayor C iniel: Who owns the gate house?
Ginger Gross: It was sold to...Jones.
Brad Johnson: A fellow by the name of Jones. Gary Kirt owns the farm. The
property that, there's an outlot that is now under, you know where the big house
is there? The sixplex?
17
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
I
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Brad Johnson: That's under option to a fellow by the name of Terry Jones to
purchase. He has one more year to exercise that option. He originally had an
option to purchase our interest or his interest, Gary Kirt's interest in the
property we were buying from Naegele's and he did not follow through on that so
that option is currently dead. So he has an option to purchase something as far
as I'm concerned is unsubdividable and that's the 6 unit apartment building.
He's currently living in it and he's invested quite a bit of time in there.
Gary's intent as I said, is to fix up the gray house and live there and then
hold at least until there's sewer and water out there, the balance of the
property. We've been asked by the Naegele Trust to help then complete the
purchase. We've had this property under option now for a year and a half or two
years. At one time we were going to develop it and we just decided that's not
' the proper thing to do given all these kinds of things. I think we've met with
the City staff. We've agreed that that's going to become an outlot. There will
be no access into that except across that easement that comes in at that end and
' as far as I can tell, legally...will allow additional lots. This is a
development contract that Jo Ann has suggested. Now that can happen anyday but
right now we have a development contract which finally allows them, the Naegele
' Trust to deliver the parcel to the Gross' . Right now that parcel is not
subdivided. If it's going to go through the process of subdivision within the
City, it's our opinion that it's the requirement that the City provide access to
the back someday. That's public. You've got a couple of cases in town here
' where that didn't happen and they're always arguing about it. When you get
somebody out in front and then you get a whole bunch of property where there's
no access. We're not saying access has to be on this property. It could be
across, you know as we talked about the other day over to the south but in all
' cases if you put a new access into that property, everybody has to agree on it.
The neighborhood has to agree and right now that's serviced by two other people
so we're just trying to clear up a situation which could ultimately end up, if
' not handled correctly here, with property that has no future access and I don't
think that's what the City wants to do. If you guys have a different way of
doing it, we're more than happy to look at it. This gives the City the right in
the future, if somebody comes in to subdivide it, to at least have public
access. And if you don't want to do it this way, maybe there's another way.
Maybe you can came in from the south at that time but right now that would take
' care of it and it allows you to subdivide the property.
Councilman Johnson: My original question was, who owns the entire 22.83 acres?
It's the Naegele Trust.
Brad Johnson: It's Gary Kirt.
Councilman Johnson: No, Gary Kirt doesn't own this yet?
Brad Johnson: No, he owns Ches Mar Farm.
Councilman Johnson: He owns the property that the Gross' are living on?
Brad Johnson: Oh that part.
I
1 18
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's what I asked. Who owns the property the Gross'
living on? That's the Naegele Trust?
p are
Brad Johnson: That's the Naegele Trust.
Councilman Johnson: Who's asking to subdivide?
Gregory Korstad: Naegele Trust.
' Councilman Johnson: Who is asking for the easement?
Gregory Korstad: Naegele Trust.
' Councilman Johnson: Three questions. Three answers. They're all the same.
What's going on with, they own the property. They have the right to do what
' they want to do with their property. If they're going to get sued by the
Gross's, that's beyond the jurisdiction of this Council to intercede into that
type of civil action. I think we need to move on this and get onto our next
item. What are we on c?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: I made a motion. It never got a second.
Mayor Qmiel: Bill, restate your motion and clarification with the road.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would move that the City Council recommends approval
of Subdivision Request #88-27 as submitted by staff with point 1 being changed
to a 35 foot road easement.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Mayor Ctmiel: Okay. And with items 2, 3 and 4?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. Right.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Subdivision
Request #88-27 as shown on the plat dated July 25, 1989 and subject to the
following conditions:
1. A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the
northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Ches Mar Farm 2nd
Addition.
2. The applicnat shall enter into a development contract with the City
designating that Outlot A has only one building eligibility and the
development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the final
plat.
3. Outlot A is considered unbuildable until it is combined with adjacent
11 property or provides two approved septic sites and street access.
' 19
1.. City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
4. The applicant shall submit a revised lat changing Lot 2, Block 1 to Outl
P g ng , of
A.
All voted in favor except Councilwanan Dimler who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Care to state your reason?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I just think there's too many unanswered questions. I
would have liked to have seen it tabled until we can establish ownership of that
house. If it indeed has been sold and...
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't matter.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I voted against it.
D. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOUTH OF
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BLVD., VAN EE KHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'll just let Jo Ann go at this. I think Jo Ann, I
' assume that this was not going to be on the Consent Agenda and now would be the
appropriate time to discuss it.
' Jo Ann Olsen: The reason it should be pulled off the consent is I believe some
of the public is here and the major issues are whether or not there should be a
thru street. A connection to the south and staff is proposing or recommending
that they do have both the north and south connection. One to Lake Lucy and
also one to Pleasant View. The applicant wants just the connection
from Pleasant View with a cul-de-sac and the neighbors on Pleasant View wish to,
they even presented a proposal with two cul-de-sacs and no flow thru. So it's
' just to allow the public to speak. We're not changing our stand at all.
Mawr Chmiel: Before we hear the public, I believe that Mr. Beddor would like
to address this. I think what we probably should do is see a presentation
from Mr. Van Eeckhout as to what he is proposing and where he's caning from and
then address the issue at that time.
Chuck Van Deckhout: I assume we're all familiar with the general location.
We're south of Pleasant View and we've got approximately 18 lots in this
section. 3 more lots up above here that we're proposing. We originally came to
the City and discussed the concept of how to develop this piece of property. We
were talking about connections to Fox Chase which is on the east side of the
property or the Nez Perce area which is to the south. We were told that there
were serious grade problems which turned out to be about 17% going to the east.
Samething around 10% going south and these were in excess of the City standards
at the time. We also had a substandard right-of way condition to the south so
I went ahead and acquired another piece of property about 150 feet wide going
off of Pleasant View. We did quite a bit of work on planning and grading and
making sure the thing worked right and the lot sizes and so forth. We then did
a proposal which would show a single access to the north. I very much prefer
11 the concept of being able to develop a community in here rather than a pass thru
situation where people could kind of identify with a very nice little area.
1 20